The Last American Vagabond - Dave DeCamp Interview - Trump's Floundering Iran War & The Ignored Somalia Bombing Spree

Episode Date: May 17, 2026

Joining me today is Dave DeCamp, news editor of Antiwar.com and host of Antiwar News with Dave DeCamp, here to discuss the chaotic and conflicting Iran war narratives presented by the Trump administration, as well as the unspoken fields of war that few choose to acknowledge in the mainstream and mainstream “alternative” media. We review the confusing nature of the US government’s war on Iran, how Israel ties into it all, and what may be the grand agenda. We also discuss the growing awareness of the government’s subterfuge and what may come next for the American people.Source Links:Antiwar.com(6) Dave DeCamp on X: “Antiwar News: Trump Says ‘Project Freedom’ Is Now Paused, US Bombs Somalia for 62nd Time This Year, and More https://t.co/lkekMaRWTy” / X(6) Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) / XNew Tab(6) Aaron Rupar on X: “AGUILAR: How many pages is the ceasefire? How do we know the ceasefire is active or not active without any documentation? HEGSETH: We know. It’s evident that the ceasefire is in effect AGUILAR: So we just trust the president that it’s active? https://t.co/6S87jk0vfp” / XReport: UAE Has Secretly Launched Attacks Against Iran - News From Antiwar.comIranian Foreign Ministry Says US Pushing ‘Unreasonable Demands’ Shaped by Israel - News From Antiwar.com(6) Drop Site on X: “💢 BREAKING: Israel has killed two more on-duty paramedics in targeted strikes in Nabatieh, southern Lebanon, journalist Courtney Bonneau reports.” / X(6) courtneybonneauimages on X: “Reuters complicit in the ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon by deliberately omitting the fact that this is a white phosphorus bomb. Using white phosphorus near civilian populations is a war crime.” / X(6) Jonathan Cook on X: “Israel has blown up 10,000s of homes in south Lebanon, erasing dozens of villages. It has ethnically cleansed some 14% of Lebanese territory. It has destroyed bridges, cutting civilians off from help. For how much longer are media and human rights groups going to suggest these https://t.co/BQk8o1ur52” / XAt Least Two Palestinians Killed in Gaza as Israel Continues Daily Attacks - News From Antiwar.comUS Nuclear-Armed Submarine Arrives in Gibraltar in Rare Public Display - News From Antiwar.comNew TabSudan Drone Strikes Killed at Least 880 Civilians Between January and April: UNThe US-Israeli Hand In Sudan’s Horrifying Civil WarUN Urges Israel To Stop Killing Unarmed Protesters, Guaido’s Fake Presidency & US Killing SomaliansBitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)Thanks for reading The Last American Vagabond Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to Last American Vagabond. Joining me once again today is Dave DeCamp from anti-war.com to discuss they're excellent insights on a lot of these conversations. We're going to start focusing on Iran, but I want to give a special shout-out. Dave, thank for joining me today on just the outstanding platform that is anti-war.com. Steve and I, for me, and wake up, we're just talking about this this morning. And it's just, it's such an underappreciated platform, at least as far as as big as I think it should be. So I just want to give you a shout out for that. And everybody on the team in AntioWord.com,

it's such a valuable resource for all this information. And I kind of just want to dive today through that, you know, insight that you guys share on all these different topics. So how are you? Welcome to the show, brother. I'm good. And thanks. I really appreciate that. And I'm happy that you guys find it as a good resource. And thanks for having me back. I really enjoyed the last time we talked on here. Yeah, me too. And like I said, you know, you're very insightful. And you, you as what I appreciate is very objective nonpartisan you know looking at this from a lens of just what's you know legal what's moral what's right and wrong like what you know what we at least as we view it you know and I think that's very important and I think honestly people are very thirsty

for that kind of honest work and I think that's why I'm just doing my best to try people to look at your important work so so let's start with Iran you know this is a topic that you know my audience is very aware of my opinions and very outspoken about the absurdity of what we're watching and Trump and everything. but, you know, I want to, you know, what in all of that, all that's happening. And let's just just take it from, you know, post, like let's just say 12-day war forward. Like, what about this is standing out in your mind? We'll go through a lot of this.

But what's the first thing that stands out that you like to talk about that, you know, from the Iran perspective, Trump's perspective, Israel's perspective. Yeah, well, I mean, unfortunately right now, it's kind of, you know, the war is very much still happening. They're trying to gaslight us into acting like the war's over and now it's a state of ceasefire. but they're actively enforcing a blockade against Iran, which is an act of war, and that includes attacking ships, firing on ships on commercial civilian vessels. And also, we just saw last week, they bombed some Iranian ports. And so, again, this is just very much an act of war. And unfortunately,

you know, we see so much in the media about negotiations and, oh, there's going to be a deal. And then, you know, the market swings in response to that. But I just, It's unfortunate, but I just don't see any scenario where Trump agrees to some kind of deal that, you know, to the deal that would be necessary to end this war because Iran is not backing down on its core demands and they're very much ready to face another U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign. So I do think it's just a matter of time before it restarts. I would guess it's going to be after Trump's trip to China. I would be very surprised if he wanted to do it during the trip.

But on the other hand, you never know what could happen because, you know, just today, U.S. Central Command said that they blocked another ship. So there is the chance of flare-ups, you know, restarting the full-scale war. But it's just like so much distraction, I think, in the media about negotiations and things when I just don't see any kind of deal happening. And I guess the only way that the war could potentially end is if Trump just gives up and pulls out of the region. but that's another thing I just I just don't see happening. I sadly agree with you. It's interesting. And we'm sure you've seen the Atlantic article and all the conversation of, you know,

we don't need Iraq war architects to tell us this is failing. You know, it's interesting. That's kind of like the allowance that we could acknowledge that it's failing at this point. You know, but it's, you know, before we even talk on the ceasefire, because I do want to point to point out a video that I want to share about that that just happened in front of Congress with Hague Seth. But, you know, the deal part of this, you know, I mean, do you think that this is designed in a way?

Like is this like I guess let me make it as simple as possible. There's so many angles to this whole thing. Do you feel that Trump is deliberately misleading us on what's happening or do you think that he's being misled? That's like the simplest way I can frame of. There's so many ways we can take that in regard to just sort of like they're, you know, they are begging for a deal and then it doesn't happen and over and over and over. Like how do you read that?

Yeah. No, I think I think Trump's just lying to us about the negotiations. And because we've seen how he times some of his, his tweets or posts on true social that he puts him out like right before the market's open and everything. But when it comes to the, you know, so-called success that the U.S. military had, I think maybe he might have been, has been maybe deceived a little bit by his officials that, you know, because apparently they were during the bombing campaign, his briefing was basically just videos of stuff blowing up in Iran. And we saw maybe some real frustration from Trump because, you know, that like, why aren't they giving up already?

Maybe that was genuine at some point. I feel like right now he has to know like the real situation. But I think when it comes to the negotiations, I really think the whole thing is like a sigh up. I mean, and that was my opinion in the lead up to the war because it was like the same pattern. We saw the same thing before the June 2025 war. There was negotiations happening. Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner were leading them. And at the same time, they're commiserating with Netanyahu.

Apparently every day they were updating Netanyahu on their progress. And there's just no way that negotiators doing that are genuine. So I think it's tough to know exactly why this ceasefire or de-escalation happened. maybe it was just the reality of the U.S. munitions and stuff and the fact that the U.S. was not winning this war as they were trying to claim. But, you know, so were they trying to just reposition forces? You know, what exactly is behind all this? But again, I do think that these negotiations just aren't genuine because, again, you still have Wickewf and Kushner leading them. You know, J.D. Vance was involved for a minute. But what did he do? He went over to Pakistan. Dan. And then he said, oh, they rejected it. So I'm leaving now. You know, he made this whole public spectacle of it.

So I think they're just waiting for what they think is the right time to restart the bombing. And I wish I, I hope I'm wrong about that, but. Yeah. Can't really see it going in another direction. And part of me is resistant to thinking that just because it's so insane. It's so evil and insane to do it again. But the whole. war is, you know, in evil and insane to begin. That was why I think a lot of people didn't actually think it was going to happen just because it's just such a crazy thing to do. Yeah, right. This is, you know, in this moment, I agree with you entirely. But of course, it ends up at a point where even if there was different reason that led

them there, you know, he sort of trapped himself in the situation. And that's what's dangerous is that I see Trump somebody who I would agree, or I would argue, I don't think that he would, I can think it matters to him, how he's seen, how this ends up more than anything, really. And so the point is that, you know, in a starting point, I don't think he would choose to do something that would look this way. But now that he's trapped in it, whether he was misled or not, then I worry that it might be taking a rational action to, you know, protect his legacy or however that looks. And so I agree with you. I'm worried how that goes forward. But, you know, to the negotiation part of it, the reason I ask that,

and I agree with the way you frame that. I think it's a little bit of both. I think it's obvious that he, you know, at some point, like in the beginning, I wondered, is this, is he being misled? I mean, there are people in that room. that called those Whitkoff and Kushner basically Israeli assets. You know, so it's like we should consider whether they're just relaying what Netanyahu ultimately wants Trump to hear. But I agree with you at some point. He must start to recognize that there's a disconnect there.

You know, and so now I'm wondering whether he is starting to become aware, even though I do think he's in line with the larger agenda, whether he's being played to a degree and what that might change in his decision-making process. You know, it's very interesting. But back to the ceasefire part of that, which is interesting within at all, because I'm of mind that when this first initiated, that within the first 24 hours, it was clear that Iran said that there is no ceasefire. The blockades at active war, you're still bombing Lebanon. And so it just kind of drifted forward. So let me play this clip really quickly. We can discuss

the reality of whatever that may be and the way Hague Seth responds, which I think speaks volumes. April 29th, you testified that the current ceasefire meant that the 60-day calendar with the War Powers resolution was paused. Who are the parties to the cease? ceasefire? Well, right now we are in that same ceasefire as of right now. It wasn't the question. Who are the parties to the United States and the regime in Iran? Who, how many pages is the ceasefire?

What deal points? I'm not asking you to share the contents. I guess what I'm trying to ask is how do we know that the ceasefire is active or not active without any documentation? We know it's evident and the ceasefire is in effect. But is it pages? Is it 15 points? There's been different points that have moved around.

You know, is there any other, how do we know you just trust that the president knows that the ceasefire is active or not active? As you know, for the most part of ceasefire means the fire is ceasing and we know that has occurred while negotiations occur and there are a lot of of different discussions with our negotiating team that are happening. I'm there when those discussions are occurring, different drafts, different perspectives. So it's a very dynamic situation where a negotiated settlement could be the outcome here, where Iran does not have nuclear capabilities. And from the Department of War perspective, we're here to support those options. On May 4th.

So what are your thoughts? Well, you know, so he mentioned the war powers resolution thing, and I think that's a big part. of the narrative that this administration is trying to push. I mean, just a few, like I think last week, Marco Rubio declared that Operation Epic Fury, which was what they named the bombing campaign, was over, and now it was like a new phase called Project Freedom.

But then that night, Trump announced that he was pausing Project Freedom. I mean, it's all kind of absurd. But what they're trying to do is obscure the, there's, you know, the war powers resolution of 1916. 73 was passed by Congress to try to rein in the executive in, you know, launching wars without congressional authorization. But it's kind of been, it's been, it was written poorly and it's been interpreted in a way where now they, they treat it as, oh, the president has 60 days to bomb a place, you know, if the war is not authorized. But the way it was written, the purpose was to create a

deadline for the president to end unauthorized military action. But it's been kind of, of reinterpreted it as like a 60-day permission slip to launch a war. So now, even though you have Marco Rubio saying that the war powers resolution is unconstitutional, they're still reporting to Congress under it. So they've been trying to obscure this 60 days. So it's been over 60 days. And Heggseth said at one point that, oh, a ceasefire resets the clock. But they're still inactive hostilities against Iran because of a blockade.

So, you know, when it comes to kind of the technicality of it, it's just, you know, know, there's no way around that this is a continued war, military hostilities or whatever. And the questions about the ceasefire are interesting because, you know, whoever that congressman was was, you know, I guess getting at, is there like some kind of written deal that was signed? And as I understand, I mean, I don't know if there was, but. Yeah, or is it all made up is kind of, I think, his point. Yeah.

And I do know that Pakistan, when they initially announced it, they said, you know, it included a ceasefire in Lebanon. Right. And then the U.S. denied that, but it turned out that the U.S. approved that statement. Right. So, yeah, you know, what is like the terms of the ceasefire? I mean, we don't really know what's what there. Yeah.

Well, and that's the frustration is that it seems to be illusory. Like, I think they know that by maintaining that they can argue. I mean, it's just so abstract. Like, back to the war powers point. Like, and correct me if I'm wrong. it necessitates that they prove that there was an eminent threat, an imminent threat, right? I mean, that seems to be the focal point and that ultimately they failed to do that. And their own statements undermine that.

So then how could they be operating within that, even if they call it unconstitutional as they operate within it, arguably that never actually got met, right? And so basically this is just Congress just ignoring its duty, if I understand that correctly. Oh, yeah. No, Congress certainly is ignoring its duty. And the way that the war powers resolution is written, I said the language is kind of problematic, but it does essentially say, you know, it has to be some kind of self-defense or something like that. Or, or as he said, like an imminent threat. And there just clearly was none. I mean, they tried to say it was, oh, because Israel was going to attack and then Iran was going to respond potentially with attacks on us, that that was the imminent threat. So, yeah, it's just, you know, it's all just nonsense. And the reason why they're able to get away with it is because Congress doesn't care. they're not doing their job. You know, they've had all these votes on the war powers resolution to, you know, which would

direct the president to stop, but they keep failing over and over again. And that's because, you know, and the Republicans, obviously, they're just supporting what Trump is doing. And the Democrats are kind of trying to make it seem like they're against this, but they're not, they don't really have an effective strategy to end the war. There's different ways that they can go about it than just having the same vote over and over again. I don't think they want to.

I mean, I think the feigned vote was sort of like, you know, not like the war is bad, but you're doing the war wrong. You know what I mean? Like, that's how it felt to me. And that that's what's so insulting is that most Americans are not going just do the war differently. They don't want the war. And all of our government does is what it feels like to me. Yeah, no. And they know that it benefits them politically.

So, like, that's why they don't have a real strategy to end it. They're just doing these kind of show votes to make it seem like, oh, look, we're really against this. And when, as you said, you even see it in what they say. like their opposition to it is how it's being waged, but also they want it to continue because they know it's going to kill the Republicans come midterms, which is just really sick to think about. Yeah, willing to sacrifice American interest, American lives for a momentary political win. Yeah, it's just U.S. politics.

Yeah, yeah, sadly. And that's another thing, you know, you kind of mentioned earlier, like when it comes to Trump, I mean, he knows, he's got to know that this is going to kill, kill them in the elections with the price of gas. going up and everything. So I would say that that's probably the main motivating factor for him to end it. You know, another thing, there are some, you know, not benefits to the American people, but benefits to American corporate interests. Of course, just the money, you know, this $1.5 trillion military budget that they're putting forward. And there's going to be an additional spending for the Iran war on top of that. That it's not even included in the $1.5 trillion. So you have that

interest of the military industrial complex driving this. And also U.S. oil and gas interest, they've, you know, gas is much more expensive for us, but for American oil and gas companies, they're exporting a whole bunch more LNG and oil to markets that they haven't really, you know, done so before. So they're making out pretty good. And we've seen Trump even said that like yesterday. He said, actually, it's kind of amazing that the Strait of Hormuz is closed because we're selling more oil than we were before.

So let's talk about that though. So this is an interesting part of the whole story is that there is an element of this that well before we got to this point, there was a worry about some sort of a, sort of a, well, the great reset was an obvious example of sort of the effort to kind of reimagine society to re, you know, to recreate to re, you know, to basically create a new form of governance or a new form of society in the way that they felt it should be. Now, I believe that's still happening. It's just left right. It's ongoing. And so one of the conversations. was that this was an effort to kind of reposition the U.S. at the center of some new energy dynamic.

You know, and so certainly makes sense, right? One of the first things I thought was like, wow, okay, that does fit in with this, but I just don't see Trump as the mastermind in all of this. And I ultimately felt like it was sort of their Trump jumping at that conversation to go, yes, I'll take that. That makes me look like I'm not failing and I have a plan. You know, it's like, that's kind of how I felt it was kind of in a funny way. But I want your thoughts on that larger conversation, whether or not Trump is the one dictating

the change. whether or not this, you know, both Iran and the U.S. and what they're doing in the straight is one sort of driving a change in the way the energy flow and sort of just the control structure from the global sense works. And then do you, and whether or not you feel like that is being engineered, essentially, or if it's just a byproduct of what's happening. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So Kyle Anzalone, who works with me at anti-war.com, on his show, he recently interviewed a journalist named Richard Medhurst. Yeah, he's been talking about it. Yeah. And so this is a big. thing, you know, that he's been talking about. And, you know, I was skeptical of initially of the narrative that this is all kind of being engineered. But I thought it was interesting. You know,

I think his argument is very interesting. And he gets into how, you know, tracing it back to the, to the war in Ukraine, starting under Biden and the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline. Now the U.S. exports much more gas to Europe than it did before. Also some interesting things happening in in the Arctic. And so I think, you know, there's merit to the argument. But as you said, with Trump, it almost seems more like he thought of these things after the fact. And another thing, you know, that he points to is that they, they secured the Venezuelan oil before doing this. But again, with Trump, it did almost seem like the oil was like a reason after the fact. When it, it's, I think, kind of the lot, the influence of, of the political faction that Marco

Rubio represents in the U.S., the Cuban and Venezuela in exiles, was a big driving factor for that. Of course, there's, you know, there's always multiple factors when it comes to these wars. One that I always like to point to is the military industrial complex. I feel like it's something people kind of miss these days because it's just this really blatant corruption that's just been, it's been this way for so long. Like you literally have the people on the, that go on the news channels that work for the think tanks that are funded by the arms makers. they're the ones crafting these policies. So that's obviously always going to be a factor when it comes to these wars. And same thing in Ukraine, because we saw all this military aid being dumped in there.

But then there is the energy aspect to it. And when it came to Venezuela, it seemed like Trump didn't really think through the oil stuff because when he held that meeting of the oil executives, they were like, well, it's going to take us like, you know, a decade to rebuild some of this oil infrastructure. It's going to cost a lot of money. we don't know if it's going to be a safe investment. So as I said, I'm skeptical of the narrative that this is all by design and that Trump is carrying out this plan, but it isn't effective it. And so, you know, that could kind of shape what happens going forward.

And while we are – but I think it is good to kind of not just look at this war in the way that, oh, the U.S. is losing total strategic defeat for the U.S. Empire. because then there are these other benefits that are happening. Obviously, we don't feel them, but the people who are really calling the shots here do. Yeah. Well, so let's talk about that too. But so the idea of what then is benefiting from this, who benefits is a classic question to ask in these circumstances, right? It doesn't always demonstrate the culprit, but it's a good indicator of what might be driving this, you know?

And so when you're looking at that, I agree. And I think that I don't see a whirl. it's clear that I think there are elements involved that see a benefit here. And it's very possible that this was driven into reality for that purpose, at least one of many. I don't think, I think Trump was played in a lot of ways. And I think it's easy to play a hubristic, narcissistic person who's convinced that the smartest person in the room and they're not. You know, it's like you present them with these false choices and go, oh, you're Mr. Trump, you're the only one that can make this big choice. And there's like a thousand other choices.

And either one of those two they present, give them what they want and it allows him to feel like he's in control. This is, you know, just a classic idea, I think, of how people are played in those positions. So the question is, you know, is this driving to some organized transition? First, to your point of the effect, I think it's obvious that that's happening, sort of, like that there's a transition, like Medhurst is doing a good job pointing out. You're seeing this transition into people, you know, people who are otherwise utilizing services here going to the U.S. to engage in their oil industry. So my point, though, is that if this goes back to what it seems like it will, whether Iran and

or not, wouldn't that go back to the other circumstance? So that's my point. I don't feel like that seems like it makes sense that that would forever change the dynamic. It just is momentarily changing that, right? But it does make a lot of good points in the previous examples of Venezuela and everything. But so my question for you is who is benefiting from this? And do we feel there's an element driving this around Trump? You know, Zionism, Israel, the technocratic discussion, AI data centers, you know, all of

this stuff. As James Corbett rightly points out in regard to like the technet idea and technocracy, one of the core points of control was always about the energy flow. And so what do you think about that? And who do you think is benefiting? And what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, yeah. That's a good point too.

And as you said, I think that's a good point that if this war, whenever this war does end, even with Iran charging some sort of toll, then we are going to really return kind of to the energy, all that energy flowing out of the Strait of Hormuz, although I guess depending on how long it is, there is a chance that a lot of the countries in Asia that are so reliant on the Persian Gulf for energy are going to diversify and kind of keep it that way after the fact. But obviously, you know, you mentioned Zionism and that is obviously like one of the bigger factors driving all this because Trump is surrounded by ideological Zionists. And he seems to be very happy to be the one to give Israel what it wants.

You know, he was always talking about how during his first. term, you know, what's his name? Sheldon Adelson, Amirate, Adelson would come up to him and say, all right, now we want to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Now let's get the goal on Heights, and he's like happy to oblige them. And so I think he was, you know, and according to the reporting, you know, Netanyahu came and gave him this presentation, like, if you do this, it's going to go great. There's going to be an uprising. Regime change is guaranteed, and it's all going to go very smoothly. So I could see Trump getting duped into believing that. And so, yeah, that's a big factor here.

And also, the Trump's, you know, it goes with Trump's plan, you know, to increase the military spending to these record-breaking levels to the $1.5 trillion budget. Because that's another thing. There's been a lot of focus on the interceptors, the, the, the, the, U.S. dwindling military stockpiles. But we're also seeing a movement toward putting our economy, you know, in our. using like factories, you know, auto factories to build missiles and, uh, and bombs and things. And that's something that the Trump administration is pursuing. So you use a whole bunch of that stuff, then you, you know, you get more contracts and more spending. So there's just so much money to be made, um, in that way. Uh, so I think these things are all aligned. And then the, the tech companies with,

you know, one thing, though, is that the U.S. tech industry is very intertwined with the Gulf Arab states. And we've actually in a lot of data centers, Amazon cloud centers and things like that, get hit by Iran. So I think maybe some of those interests certainly don't benefit. And that is another interest maybe kind of working against this war. Or is the U.S. financial interests with the Gulf Arab states. They make these huge investments in the U.S. And they're certainly not happy with the way things have gone. Right.

They're not being protected. Yeah, yeah. So, you know, and now it seems like the U.A. is more eager to kind of be involved if this thing restarts because it seemed like, you know, that these countries didn't want this war to start, but once it started, then they were like, all right, well, we got to finish the job here. And then now that there's the ceasefire, it seems like the Saudis, I mean, this is basically just from my own reading, you know, I don't really know for sure that the Saudis don't really

want it to restart into full-blown war, but the UAE is kind of more ready. Why do you think that is? Well, I think because the UAE, I mean, the UAE got hit. during this so-called ceasefire. Well, we actually just learned, and this is something that Iran said, that after the ceasefire was announced and supposedly went into effect, oil refineries on one of Iran's islands in the Persian Gulf got bomb. And at the time, Iran blamed it on the UAE.

And we just had this report from the Wall Street Journal saying that it was the UAE using their French-made fighter jets. And so Iran responded with missile and drone attacks. And so I think they're more kind of directly involved. and have been hit pretty hard by Iran that they might be more ready to go here. And they have kind of formed a strategic partnership with Israel under the Abraham Accords and are just kind of more than many of the others, if I understand, right? UAE is more aligned. Yeah, that makes sense.

And clearly I think they've committed themselves at this point. And so it's like I think Iran has recognized that they've committed to Israel and the U.S. agenda. And so there's no point in, you know, I think the way that the whole blockade and everything started or rather the conversation of who could go through in the living. limited restrictions of the straight was that anybody that was engaged against Iran. And then they gave them that opening. They said, well, if you stop engaging against us, we won't have those. And you think UAE was one of the obvious standouts. And so what do you think that that resolves into?

You know what I mean? So they ultimately, you know, it comes down to all of them essentially bombing, like the allowance now. Like these are civilian things we're talking about. But the AI overlap or the data center overlap is a hard argument because in effect that is becoming a military target, right? That is part of the military infrastructure. So they've kind of loosened the allowance of what becomes a military target and not or not,

you know, and so how do you see that to that point actually first? How do you see that changing the field of war going forward? You know, that now, I mean, because like Iran, even targeting oil infrastructure, I argue that's still a crime. I think that's illegal on either side, but now both sides seem to be engaging with that. So that's a objectively negative thing going forward. Do you think that will revert? Do you think it'll get worse?

What's your opinion? Oh, yeah. I think it'll get, if this restarts, you know, full scale, I think it's going to get much worse with that sort of targeting. And that's essentially been what Iran's warning, what their threat of response is, is that they are going to really light up because they have hit the oil infrastructure in these Gulf countries,

but there's a lot that they didn't hit and that they still could hit. And then that gets into the water desalination plants. Right. Which some have been hit in Iran, I believe one or two were hit in maybe, I want to say Bahrain in Kuwait. but and that's something Trump threatened and one of his through social posts was to bomb the desalination plants in Iran now the thing is is that the Gulf Arab states are much more reliant on that than Iran is so if that

becomes a target I mean that would be that could potentially be catastrophic for the people that live in these countries and in the region and I mean you know but the US and Israel not only in Iran but all over the region have completely, you know, just disregarded what is and what is not civilian or military. We saw, you know, they bombed Iran's most prestigious engineering school, university. It's like if MIT was bombed. And, you know, the claim was, oh, they're related to the military complex in Iran. But it's like, dude, the engineering schools here in the U.S., I mean, are just completely intertwined

with the Pentagon and the defense contractors. So, like, if that's the standard, you know, we're setting that standard. over there like this can very easily blow back on us so yeah i think if if this restarts we're going to see that a really nasty war even nastier than before well before we talk about that and like where it will go i what the to the blockade point and then let's get into some of the other points too i want to talk about somalia and the different points that aren't being discussed largely and even lebanon gaza as well but the the the blockade itself you know because you're this this is the stuff that I turn to anti-war for in general.

Like, I want to see your insight on these things. Like, when this started, how do you read the way this went down? You know, like for, I, so in regard to what actually happened, I mean, we've already kind of discussed it, but, you know, was it a complete closure of the straight? Was there allowance? And in regard to the mines, that's what I really want your thoughts on. Because there's been, that's something they're clearly capable of. I believe it's happened in the past.

Was there ever actually minds in this part of the conversation, in your opinion? Or was that just a manufactured live from Trump? I think there were some mines placed, but as far as I'm aware, as I understand it, a relatively small number, because that's not really how Iran has closed this straight. They closed the straight with the threat of drone attacks. They hit a lot of tankers during the war. And that's all I need is that threat of those little drones flying into a tanker. Yeah, just the insurance. Insurance, you know, these ships can't get insurance if they have those threats. And so they're not going through. And but what we we saw kind of the chain of events here is that they agreed to the ceasefire. And Iran said that they would open the Strait of Hormuz. But as I understand that, that would have involved them getting some sort of toll. But then there was no ceasefire in Lebanon. So they said, okay, we're going to keep it, keep the restrictions on. And then Trump said, well, oh, yeah, well, we're going to blockade you now. So. And that point, too, then. So at that point then,

and the blockade they created when Iran was to say, and do you agree that Iran was willing to allow people to go through? And I think they've demonstrated that that weren't at war with them. So I would call it restricted as opposed to closed. I feel like that's accurate if you agree with that. But then in regard to the blockade, was this effectively Trump and, you know, creating a blockade where they claimed Iran was actually the one with the blockade?

Like, how does that play out? Because the blockade, like it felt like they were going reopen the street. and then they started a blockade themselves. So that kind of feels like what I was discussing where it felt like they wanted the world to feel it was a blockade when it kind of wasn't, in a sense. It was more of the, you know, so that's my opinion.

So how do you read that in regard to Iran playing that? Do you think they were closed more than they, sorry, what I said first? There's so many thoughts that jump into my mind when I want to bring this to the larger point. So again, was it fully closed in the first place? Was Trump's blockade, the actual closure? How do you read that?

Well, yeah, so during the war, we saw tankers, you know, carrying Iranian oil, leave the Strait of Hormuz, go to China. I think some even went to India because the U.S. at one point, released a sanctions waiver for Iran, so to get more oil on the global market to try to keep the prices down. But we started, you know, we saw that. And then there were some countries that negotiated deals to get their ships through. And then so, yeah, like how exactly. So it wasn't fully closed, but I mean, compared to the levels of before the war, it was like, you know, maybe 3% of traffic than was before. Okay. So right there.

And that point, though. So then was that in your mind, this is all opinion, it's very hard to see because there's so many different varying narratives. But so right then, so hypothetically, if Iran's statement was correct, and they did say this publicly, we're only at war with the Zionist and the U.S. government and, you know, others can go through. do you feel like that was representative of them saying people can't go through or more so the insurance side of it and U.S. and Israel saying there's minds and there's threats and that kind of idea. Like I feel like if it was just to your what's your opinion? Do you feel like that drove it more or Iran's threats drove it more from the global perspective? Yeah, I mean, it's hard to say because it wasn't really very long.

Yeah. But no, I think what drove kind of the shutdown, well, obviously, was the war in Iran's initial attacks on the tankers. And then when it comes to what the, you know, I don't really think it was driven so much by what the U.S. was saying, but what Trump tried to do, what he called Project Freedom, he said, are we're going to help guide ships out and basically let them know where mines are and where they can go. You know, I don't think that soothed any shipping companies, you know, that I don't think

anyone was really willing. The U.S. claims that two ships went out, but I don't think anybody was really willing to take that risk based just on what Trump was saying. Yeah. For I wish I'll too, that was like the tanker trackers and they said there was nothing that actually went through. That's, I mean, that's even that original argument, remember of eight to ten tankers full of oil that apparently were gifted to him? Oh, yeah. Yeah. That happened. I think that, so I think that he was referring to Iran allowing some other countries to like during the war let their ships go through you know some what they called non that's what i was saying then is the idea was that was them demonstrating

look other people can go through and then trump used that to argue he made it happen that's how i read that how you see it do yeah that's i that's i think what exactly would happen um crazy yeah and then so and then the blockade so initially it sounded like trump was saying that the u.s is now going to close the Strait of Hormuz. Right. But then the U.S. military kind of clarified that they're now enforcing a blockade on Iranian ports, that they're going to stop any ship going either to

Iran or leaving Iran. And as the trackers have shown, ships have been able to make it through the blockade, but the U.S. has also blocked a lot of ships. Right, right. And we have seen them fire on at least, I think, four ships now, you know,

at this point. So actually attacking them with, you know, fighter jets or um i think at one point a u.s navy destroyer fired on a ship um so obviously this is just not conducive to the global shipping and they're not military targets either we're talking about you know merchant tankers civilian stuff which i find interesting comparison when you're seeing iran effectively push back against people who are military engaging militarily engaging with them and the u.s is pushing back on people who are not engaged like that's a very easy thing to see right there, you know, on which side is effectively breaking the law, I guess.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we've also seen Iran, you know, they're firing drones at tankers and stuff, but from the states that are, I guess, in the war against them. And that's totally fair. Like this, and this is the interesting point to highlight. Actually, I'm glad you brought it up again. I want your, I want your thought on that in regard to how many and when.

But the point would be that I, for my experience, I don't remember, except maybe like the Limpot-Mine, Bolton-Po-Trump discussion, which I still think with sort of the SIEOP, that I don't see examples where I don't. Iran is just kind of belligerently attacking tankers when they want to. In this case, it seems that they started doing so when they were being targeted or their other tankers were being attacked. But either way, my point is always it's a crime, no matter what. It's because it is either side, no matter what the justification is. But my question would be early conversations where Iran were attacking all these tankers. But then I started to get some

inside, at least other arguments that this was Israel, the U.S., and doing so. And then right after that, we did get a series of attacks from the U.S. Israel on more tankers when the argument was sort of like that didn't work for their agenda. Like it hurt the oil conversation. So I started to immediately question whether that was the case. Now, obviously Iran is capable of doing so. And I see them as like any other government. It wouldn't surprise me.

They saw it in their interest. I don't think that was in their interest. I think it was sort of like the opposite. They wanted it to. My mind is that they wanted the flow to continue because it demonstrated what Trump was doing was a lie. And so I wonder whether that was part of that like an illusion. One more point.

and then you give me your thoughts in regard to like the Iraq base, for example. And the idea that we now have more insight, the cradle argued that one of these other attacks on Saudi Arabia was in fact a false flag from Israel. And so do you think that that might have been some of that? And do you, and regarding the ones you think they did attack, was that a proven attack that we can see and like make and prove that Iran did attack them? That doesn't surprise me, but I'm curious if you actually saw that. Yeah, well, so I do think it's possible that there was false flags happening, especially in some of the attacks on the, the Arab states. When it comes to the tankers and stuff,

I mean, same thing, it's certainly possible. I think it's probably kind of an easy false flag to pull off. You know, you just launch a drone into a ship. And, you know,

for talking more recently, I don't really know if there's a confirmation of Iran attacking these ships, but I do know initially they were, as far as I understand, you know, I don't think they officially took credit for these attacks, but to close the straight,

to essentially take control, of it. They did so with the threat of drone attacks. And they, and they did conduct drone attacks. Right. Right. And then, you know, when it comes to them allowing the flow of some to go through, you know, basically since Trump announced his blockade, as we said, we have seen ships go to and from Iran. But as I understand, that's mainly from, you know, out in the Gulf of Oman on the other, you know, south or east of the Strait of Hormuz. But I, you know, I think, you know, I think, you know, it's certainly possible that some of these attacks were not Iran. I just don't really know, you know, I can't put a number on, you know,

or percentage on how many could have been. There's just been so much stuff happening. No, definitely. I just think I just want to point out that I think it's, you know, as I'm sure you've argued as well, in this conversation, we've made these points. We're dealing with very dishonest entities. And both governments are capable of lying. And so we should very much be questioning every claim from every side.

I just think it's interesting to think. this is kind of what I've been trying to kind of bring it back to in all this conversation is, you know, what's in their interest? Because like talking about the way this may end, it's, I believe it's going to go back to basically the same situation, but now they control the straight with the lanes and tolls and now I'm demanding that the U.S. and Israel give them reparations or they're going to keep them boxed out. Other than that, I think it's going to largely go back to what it was before because that's in their interest. They're going to gain so much from that. And so I think that's what I'm thinking about it.

Like, would that benefit them in doing that? But to your point, it clearly does the way you describe that to initiate this. But then going forward, I think they've done a very clear job, they've done a good job very clearly of not taking actions that would give the world ammunition against them for what the Trump and Netanyahu governments say they are, whether they are or not. I think they're playing that very well. And I think they've clearly strategically beat, you know, one out in this situation. You know, so on this point, before we talk.

talk about Gaza and Lebanon for a second, do you think that that's where they are? Do you share that opinion? Do you think that they've effectively lost in this? Do you think that's, you know, how do you read this and where does it go forward? You mean when it comes to Iran's position? Yeah, specifically, sorry, with Iran and then let's just say the U.S. and Israel. Like that in that dynamic, do you feel that they've strategically lost and how do you see it going forward from here? Oh, you know, I think Iran, you know, all they needed to do to win was to survive. And if they can maintain control of the straight and

this ends with them getting some kind of toll to pay for the reconstruction and everything that that would certainly be a win for them. And I do think, as you said, it's clear that a lot of the U.S. maneuvering right now is to try to make it seem like Iran is the aggressor. And I think Iran's been careful in its responses to what, you know, the U.S. has been doing when enforcing the blockade recently. But, and some of these things they've kept unofficial, like recently, like recently, there were all these drone attacks in the UAE, including against oil infrastructure. And Iran has officially denied it. But before that, like Iranian media reported that this was a response to the U.S.

announcing this new military operation. So some of this stuff they're keeping unofficial and covert. That actually, that response is the one that I thought it made sense. Like, because it's a clear response. But I pointed out they denied it. And so we should consider that that might have been a false flag, you know, but it does make sense. Yeah. Yeah, it was actually very strategic what they appeared to have done.

They targeted one of the UAE's only oil fields and infrastructure that is exported through pipelines. It doesn't go through the strait of Pormuz. So they're showing that they do have this escalation. They have a lot of ways that they can escalate. I mean, a lot of ways. And it really does come down to the oil infrastructure. The Houthis in Yemen. They fired a few missiles at Israel during the war, but they didn't really enter it.

could really hit the oil fields and things in Saudi Arabia that's exported through the the Red Sea and that would really hurt the Saudis. So they have a lot of ways that they can go. And they are showing that they're not afraid of the U.S. restarting the bombing campaign, which is why they're not capitulating to the U.S. demand. So they're certainly still in a whole, they're certainly holding a lot of cards despite what Trump says. Right. I've actually surprised on the note that the Aungu, the Ansarola movement, the Houthis haven't gotten involved. like more so because it's clear they've taken a very strong stance in regard to kind of the whole situation through Gaza and you know and it's I think that's almost a strategic move.

You know what I mean? Like it's not necessary just yet. Like that's how I would read that. But I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen more because that could make a huge difference, you know? What do you think about that? Why do you think, do you have a reason or thought about why they wouldn't have gotten involved? Yeah, because I think they didn't think it was necessary at the time. They wanted to leave that room to escalate.

and they saw that they were essentially winning the war, even though, like, from our, an American perspective, you know, a lot of people think just blowing things up, you know, killing more people. We certainly killed, the U.S. certainly killed more Iranians. But that doesn't measure the success of the war. Iran was able to, you know, just recently the Washington Post published all the satellite images that the U.S. government was trying to censor of how the Iranians, really did hit all these U.S. bases very deliberately, you know, hitting the targets that they, that they meant to hit. So if they can, and they were able to do that throughout the whole war. So, you know, they, they didn't need to take those other steps. They wanted to, I think, keep something in the cards. If the U.S., if Trump started bombing all the power plants and bridges in Iran like he was threatening. So, but it does really show that there's more ways. Iran can escalate. What do you think that would, oh, sorry, go ahead.

And shutting down the Red Sea, you know, that would just really add to the global economic fallout. That's what I was going to ask right there. So is that, is that, what would that effectively look like? So with what's happening on the street and then you have the, the Ansarola movement stepping in in the red sea, what is that? Explain me, what do you think that would do? What would they effectively do in your opinion?

Like shut them down from the other side and stop transit around like the Horn of Africa? I guess they would. How do you see that? I think we would probably see similar to what they did when Biden was in. When they announced the blockade on Israeli shipping or Israeli linked shipping. Right. And then when the U.S. and the U.K. started bombing them, then they expanded that to U.S. and British shipping. You know, I don't think they would completely shut it down.

Throughout basically that whole time, they were allowing, you know, Chinese and Russian ships to go through. I think they might have accidentally hit one or two. But, you know, I don't think they would just completely. completely shut it down, but it would, you know, they could really hurt Europe with that blockade. Well, I guess what I mean, though, is that how is that, what would that change? So the street, what's happening in the straight is causing a lot of that? And then if they added to that, does that, what does that functionally change to the circumstance? Because it really doesn't seem like it changes much because you're already having the,

the block at the straight, right? So how is it where they'd effectively stop them from going, like the ship's going to Israel and so on, unless I'm missing, unless I'm not visualizing it properly. Well, I think just when it comes to the global economy, like shutting, shipping, more shipping down there is going to increase energy prices more. And also the Saudis, you know, they export a lot of stuff out of the Red Sea. They could potentially shut that down.

Yeah, yeah, I see that. And then that talks to the whole, yeah, and this is what's so interesting. Last point on this, and this is, so there's so many different angles. The whole point of Yemen, do you feel like that was originally, like, do you feel like that was one of the larger reasons they were trying to take control of Yemen was because of this exact circumstance. Yeah. Yeah, no, I think so.

Yeah. And I mean, they're not done with Yemen. There's a lot of stuff happening, you know, that indicates Israel is preparing to try to escalate a war against Yemen and the U.S. as well. And with the Somaliland recognition and everything. And kind of the UAE's positioning in Somaliland and punt land on the Gulf of Aden. So I think there's been signs that they are, you know, because the Houthis or Ansar a lot have shown that they can, they can sustain a pretty heavy bombing campaign from the Saudis, the UAE, from, and from the U.S. And from Israel.

Israel really did launch some heavy airstrikes there. So they know just, you know, they're going to need more than that. And you've got to think that Israel's kind of long-term vision for the region is going to involve really putting the hurt on. on Yemen. Yeah. Yeah. I've talked about the Bob El Mandeb Strait and the idea of just trying to like circumvent that, you know, it's clearly it's more important to them now than ever since they've,

what everyone's been worried about the entire time, whether or wrong but shut down the straight is in effect, you know, so at least in our conversation that we're having about it. So that would effectively block off and or at least have another route. And so funny, how funny is the worst word for it. It's crazy how long that's been happening. So the starvation of Yemen for decades in order to try to accomplish this, you know, it's just, it's sad to see.

what they're willing to do to gain control over everybody, it seems. But you mentioned Somaliland. Why don't we talk about that next in regard to Somalia and the many, you know, the first of all, the relation there, if you want to get into that and why that's important, but just the idea of the ongoing bombing campaigns that nobody talks about. Anti-war and your work alone seem to be some of the very few out there that actually cover that it's happening. Tell us about that and why it's happening. I don't mean, Americans even know what's happening. Yeah, yeah. I mean, a lot of times we're literally the only like news media outlet in the U.S. covering this. And when it comes to like, you know, that puts out written content,

the way that we do. And so yeah, the Trump administration has escalated the U.S. bombing campaign in Somalia to, you know, record levels. And there's kind of two wars happening here. And one of them is the war against al-Shabaab, where the U.S. backs the government that's based in Mogadishu, the Somali government that was essentially installed by a U.S.-backed intervention starting in 2006. And that's when they took out at the time, there was a group called the Islamic Courts Union took power in Mogadishu from CIA-backed warlords, and then the U.S. helped take out the Islamic Courts Union, and then al-Shabaab was kind of the radical offshoot, and the U.S. and the African Union and the EU propped up the government that's still in place.

now, but they're still fighting this war against al-Shabaab 20 years later. And then, of course, like in a lot of these places, an ISIS affiliate popped up back in 2015, and they're based in Puntland, which is in the Northeast. So the war against al-Shabaab's happening in southern Somalia. And then in Puntland in the northeast, there's an ISIS affiliate. And there's just no information about this war. As I understand, they're based in caves, you know, the U.S.-backed Puntland government forces who are fighting them occasionally put out pictures of, like, will look like teenagers and gym shorts that are apparently the ISIS guys, but the U.S. has been bombing, launching a whole bunch of air strikes up there.

And it's one of those wars like the Puntland government's always saying, oh, we're almost done, you know, we're going to achieve victory. Right. This year, this is it. And it just continues. And why is this happening? I mean, that is a good question. I really see it as a holdover of kind of the terror wars.

And just they created this beast, this, to launch these drone strikes and things. these drones that I do think they still mainly use drones like MQ9 Reaper drones to carry out these strikes. Something that we've learned in Yemen and now Iran is that they're very vulnerable to, if the country has any kind of air defenses, they can shoot them down. The dozens were shot down in Yemen, dozens were shot down in Iran during this war, but they could still use them to bomb guys in caves that have no weapons beyond an AK-40. So I think it is really quickly Like millions, billions? What do we call? One of the MQ Reaper drones?

What do they cost? Yeah. I think 30 million each. And that's like the low, the low estimate. It's probably more than that. Yes, I think 24 were shot down during the Iran war.

So it's big money, yeah. So, you know, I think a lot of it is that just kind of continuing this war. And, you know, people tie it to because people don't know, a lot of people don't know what's happening. So a lot of times I'll tweet about it. And people say, oh, this is it. This was the plan all along. They're weakening Somalia. So then Israel can recognize Somaliland and build a base there. But Somaliland doesn't really have anything to do with this war. Somaliland is in the north and has been essentially de facto independent state since the early 90s. And the U.S. wars have not been fought there. And the government that the U.S. props up is very against Somaliland independence.

And same thing with the government in Puntland that the U.S. backs, which has withdrawn from the federal system because of their dispute with the government, the federal government, but they still believe in Somalia, you know, as a country just with like federalism. So the people that the U.S. is backing in Somalia are very, very against Somalian independence and Israel establishing a presence there. So I don't think it's really related to that. you know, it's not like they're trying to break up Somalia. They're trying to keep this government that really doesn't have any power or support. They're trying to keep them in control of Southern Somalia. So I just don't see it as really related to that. And I would agree.

I think you could look at, I agree. I think you're accurate on that. I think the statement is, or you could see it as multiple agendas playing out. But I think the obvious point we made is that the, like, if the argument is that that was an effort to sort of like take control the country. Well, that happened already. They already influenced and control, I would argue, a lot of what's taking place through their war on al-Shabaab

that effectively is something they created, as you've highlighted before. But so, like, do you feel that Somaliland then is sort of like Israel's effort to accomplish something there? Or is that just opportunism? Like, do you feel that's even relevant to the conversation? Yeah, no, I do. I mean, I think it's, you know,

it's a situation that's existed for a few decades, this kind of de facto independence of Somaliland. And so Israel sees it as an opportunity. And Somaliland, it's kind of interesting. You know, you see how like states act in their own interests more than like what their people identify with because, you know, everybody's Muslim in Somaliland and Somalia. So there's been like protests against this, the government just willing to work with Israel. And they're saying that they're willing to allow Israel to establish a military base on their coast, the Gulf of Aden. And that's all because Israel is the first country to recognize.

them and they know that that is going to make it much more likely for the U.S. to recognize them. And they're also offering bases to the U.S. And another thing that could be related to the future war with Yemen, even though the war against Yemen, has never really stopped, but like kind of another round of it, is in Puntland. Because Puntland also has a coast on the Gulf of Aden. And the U.S. has reportedly been using a UAE air base that was established there for its strikes against the ISIS, the affiliate in the mountains. So that could potentially be used as a launch pad. I don't really know the state of it if the U.S. has been really building up there.

But it could potentially be used, you know, as a launching pad for attacks on Yemen. Besides, you know, the aircraft carriers and stuff that they've used before. So, you know, that could be related. Yeah. I mean, that's just a class, like, you know, it's funny. You mentioned a while ago about mentioning what was it. I forget the term what you used. You know, the point is like saying the war is for oil or, you know, it's like, oh,

that's the old argument from a long time ago. No, those things still matter, right? I don't think that's the driving force today. But all of these gold, money, oil, these things still, are they, they make a difference in regard to these agendas and simply having geostrategic control of an area is going to be important going forward, you know. And so that that's one of the, but there's so many other factors, whether it's rare minerals or any other thing that's happening in any of these places of war.

I think that's all, you know, it's just, it's control, right? And I think that's what we're seeing in this new kind of technocratic edge of a lot of this is, you know, as the world changes in the way they're remaking it, it's about having control of these resources to control that change. That's how I would view it anyway. But to talk about the overlap of this with Gaza and Lebanon, because it's the same conversation as far as I'm concerned. I mean, Iran clearly sees it that way. And even Israel does, even though they try to play it both ways when they want to. So let's talk about that briefly and just, you know, to kind of finish on one, how you see them playing into that and then just, you know, your thoughts on it in regard

to let's start with Lebanon because it's pretty horrible. that that's not getting as much attention as it should. And I see it as just an extension of the ongoing genocide. And it almost, I mean, I'm pretty sure they've even called it, the Gaza model. So what are your thoughts on what's happening in Lebanon? Yeah, no, the senior Israeli officials have openly said that they're carrying out the Gaza model in southern Lebanon. They've completely destroyed many towns and villages there. I mean, I've seen drone footage from there that it just looks exactly like Gaza in some of these villages.

And since they really escalated in early March, I believe the death tolls over 3,000. now in Lebanon, which is a very small country, and about 1.6 million people have been displaced, forced out of the South, essentially ethnic cleansing. And Iran is tied a ceasefire, like a real deal, to they're also being peace in Lebanon and an end to the Israeli attacks there. And that's one thing. I just don't see them. I mean, they're escalating now. Hasbala has been able to hit IDF soldiers with these new drones that they have that use fiber optic cables which it's kind of interesting

and so they can't be they're not susceptible to the Israeli electronic warfare they can't be jam so they can just kind of fly in and take their time picking their target so that is uh and so in response to that it looks like Israel is going to escalate even more and invade further take over more territory uh and I just don't see things um and you have senior, you know, people try to make it seem like Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister,

who's also a minister in the defense ministry, is some kind of fringe figure. But he's a very senior member of the government and has a lot of influence and power. And he's openly said, you know, we got to occupy and settle southern Lebanon, take the territory. The defense minister says it's, they're never, they're not leaving. You know, it's a long-term occupation. And so Trump has shown, you know, he at one point declared that Israel was prohibited from further strikes in Lebanon. That's another thing. It's just absurd to even say this, but supposedly there's a ceasefire in Lebanon that was agreed to between the government of Lebanon and Israel, but Israel is just not followed it at all. And this is another thing that I think Iran is trying

to avoid that we've seen them respond to the U.S. escalations during this so-called ceasefire. They don't want to create a situation where it's one of these Israeli-type ceasefires, where one side simply does not actually cease firing. And the other side is expected to just take it. But yeah, it's just a really horrific situation in southern Lebanon. Yeah. And it's not new as you're highlighting. I mean, that's what so frustrating is.

Like I even, and I'll say I'm glad to see it discussed, but I was watching Joe wrote, I saw a clip going around of Joe Rogan discussing this with somebody about Lebanon. and it's like, oh, yeah, now they're attacking Lebanon now. And I'm going, God, it's just so infuriating. Like, you can't take three steps, like a look back at all the conversation. You know, it didn't just pop up all of a sudden because now people are pointing at it. It's been ongoing since what? I mean, at least the blue line conversation allegesiesies fire for, what, 79?

They forget the number. But it's just like this never stops. They're always engaging with this. And it's so frustrating that people who seem to talk about it can't take the time to look at the bigger conversation. You know, that it's, it's a violation of the ceasefire, a violation of, I mean, it's an illegal war from the long before this started. And now they're pretending it's a ceasefire and then continuing to attack. And if I understand that correctly, the way that they worded it was sort of like we're making an agreement with Lebanon to have them stop Hezbollah.

And if, you know, that's not even involving Hezbollah, but somehow they're required to not fire. It's clearly by design to be manipulated, you know. And so ultimately they just continue to bomb them. I even saw a colonel publicly say, I think the day before. yesterday, just outright, there is no ceasefire in Lebanon. Not with them or with Hezbollah. In general, it doesn't exist. And yet the media still pushes that and still pretends.

So it's, yeah, you see a headline like, oh, Israel, you know, launches strikes in Lebanon in test of the ceasefire. It's like, yeah, you know, are children dying or a number of things. Saul Rod does a good job on that. She's constantly pointing out or rad. I forget that how he pronounce it. But it continues to point that out. And it's just, I think average people are seeing that, you know.

Yeah. And to finish the same thing with Gaza, you know. And that's what's so hard about this is I'm of the mind that pretty much the whole world is aware of what's happening in Gaza at the very least. Because it, because of work like yours and other independent media, it got forced into the conversation. But that's not stopping. The alleged ceasefire there, you know, so we finished on your thoughts on Gaza. You know, it's not funny of them. Gaza is just, it's just so horrible.

I mean, the state that the people are living in there, Israel has taken more territory since the so-called ceasefire deal was signed. They control about 60% of Gaza. And then the civilians are crammed into the rest, just living in rubble and intense and infested with rats and disease spreading and no, just nothing. They have nothing. And they're not allowing reconstruction to happen. And Israel bombs a place every single day and kills people every single day. And just because it's like, you know, less people than before. You don't hear about it in the media.

And I usually make a point every day to write a story about the violence in Gaza just because it, you know, and I just get it from the Palestinian news agencies usually, sometimes not even from them. One thing that we have at anti-war.com is we have an account with Reuters for their photos and videos that they get both from Reuters, and other journalists from all sorts of news agencies around the world. And so a lot of times I just look at the pictures and videos from Gaza. And this is something that all the big news outlets have access to is the pictures and videos from Gaza that are verified. from legitimate news agencies. And sometimes I write stories just based on those reports.

Sometimes it's videos and interviews with Palestinians of people being killed and just scenes from the hospitals of children kill. And it's just horrible. And it gets no attention and the so-called, I mean, it's so Orwellian. I feel like we need a new term than Orwellian. Like we need an updated one. The Board of Peace, I mean, it's just so crazy that. that's what they named this. This is supposedly what's overseeing the ceasefire is the Board of Peace.

And recently the Board of Peace told Hamas that if you don't disarm, we're not going to hold Israel to the terms of the ceasefire deal. Well, they have not held Israel to the terms of the ceasefire deal this entire time. So essentially what they're threatening is Israel restarting, you know, the full-scale bombing campaign, full-scale genocide. So the Board of Peace is literally threatening genocide. And Trump, the leader of the Board of Peace, held its first meeting, you know, what, like two weeks before he started a war with Iran. And I remember watching that man, it was just sick.

Like, J.D. Vance came up and he starts by making like a joke about AOC. It's like, dude, you're talking about Gaza. Like, the worst thing that's happened, like the worst crimes against humanity have happened there. And this is supposedly a way to end it. And you start by like just making your cheap little political. jokes and not actually addressing anything about what's happening in Gaza or anything about this supposed peace deal that is just nothing close to peace. And one thing that this whole arrangement did is it made the U.S. more complicit because

they established a military base in southern Israel manned by U.S. troops where they're supposedly monitoring the ceasefire. Well, this whole time, Israel has violated it by attacking Gaza and not allowing the number of aid trucks that they agreed to to enter consistent. instantly. Yeah, so the border just called that out. Yeah. So they're literally just watching this and, you know, giving them the bombs to do this.

And anyway, it just really makes me sick this whole situation. And I think, you know, for a little while I was thinking that Israel was going to restart full-scale military operations in Gaza. But now I'm thinking more like it looks like they want to escalate more in Lebanon and restart the war against Iran. So they might, I think they just want to keep Gaza in this horrific. status quo for the time being where nobody can really live in any real way. Yeah. Well, that's just horrific, you know, and the one positive on all of this is that people

have seen this. They know, and that's, you know, the Palestinians, the point is that I've seen the discussion for such a long time of Palestinians who will stand the resilience they demonstrate and stand for what they believe in, for what is theirs, and have been called terrorists for it their entire lives. At this point, how this, and honestly, I think it's because of what Israel did, how it conducted itself, whatever it is, and their ongoing fight to expose this, the world

has become aware of this. I don't think that's ever going to go away. I don't think that ever gets put back in the bottle. But the question is, and one thing we're becoming uncomfortably aware of is a hundred percent of us can see this and it seems to not change what's happening. So that shows us something. That shows us about the nature

of the world that we exist in. The Epstein class, whatever people are recalling it. We're starting to recognize that that's the actual problem. And I think that that gives us an opening for actual change. But the sad part of it, the obviously horrifying reality is these people continue to kill as that, you know, as I guess the world grapples with what that awareness is. And so I just implore people out there to watch Dave's work, to look at the anti-word.com platform, to look at our work, to question what's happening and call this out because one more voice may make all the difference, you know, and I just think that's important. So thank you for what you do, brother.

Any words you want to leave us with on the way out? Any upcoming events or work or anything you want to talk about before we leave? Yeah, no, just read Anti-Wore.com. And you can check on my show, too. I also do a daily podcast. It's about 30 minutes where I cover the news. It's on YouTube or Rumble or wherever you watch stuff. And you can download the podcast as well.

It's called Anti-War News with Dave DeCamp. And that is me. So please check that out. And also just thanks again for having me, Ron. I really enjoy talking you. I really appreciate your work as well. Thank you. And yeah, it's always always good to chat.

Yeah, we should do it again, brother. I really enjoy your insights and make it a regular habit. So we're looking forward to the next one. And as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.